Mr. Chafer conducts his discussion . . .
on the presupposition that . . . “[w]e are either to be delivered by the abrupt
removal of all tendency to sin, and so no longer need the enabling power of God
to combat the power of sin, or we are to be delivered by the immediate and
constant power of the indwelling Spirit.”This irreducible “either—or” is unjustified.In point of fact, both “eradication” and
“control” are true.God delivers us from
our sinful nature, not indeed by “abruptly” but by progressively eradicating
it, and meanwhile controlling it.For
the new nature which God gives us is not an absolutely new somewhat, alien to
our personality, inserted into us, but our old nature itself remade—a veritable
recreation, or making of all things new.[1]

Furthermore, in his bibliography
Barabas cites no works by Warfield other than his Perfectionism,[2]
supporting the possibility that Barabas’s astonishing misrepresentation of the
Princeton theologian is a product of his shallow understanding of Warfield’s
theology.However, to avoid the conclusion
that Barabas has deliberately misrepresented Warfield, one must assume not only
that he neglected to read Warfield’s critique of Chafer, but that Barabas has
not even carefully read the pages he cites[3]
where Warfield explains his position. On those very pages the Princetonian
states:“Counteraction there is;
and suppression there is; but most fundamentally of all there is eradication;
and all these work one and the self-same Spirit.”[4]Barabas’s Keswick
classic never states or even hints that Warfield taught counteraction,[5]
suppression, and eradication—the reader of So
Great Salvation who did not consult Warfield’s own writings would certainly
never know what Warfield actually believed.Barabas, in a number of pages of confused critique, never summarizes
Warfield’s position as clearly as does Paul Schaefer in a single sentence:“Warfield’s emphasis on divine sovereignty
and on regeneration mean[t] that God both controls by the power of the Spirit
the remnants of indwelling sin and progressively eradicates them in the one
whom he has remade, as that person grows in faith.”[6]Whether a matter of deliberate
misrepresentation of inexcusable sloppiness and carelessness, Barabas’s attempt to rebut Warfield in So Great Salvation falls so short of success that it does not even
state the position of the great Princeton theologian accurately.

Since
Barabas so strikingly misrepresents Warfield’s position[7]
as one that “tempts the Christian to negligence,” leads him to turn from
“continued reliance upon the keeping power of God,” and teaches that “we must
reach a stage of spiritual development where the old nature was completely
eradicated . . . [and we] become ethically self-sufficient,”[8]
it is appropriate to provide an extended quotation from Warfield’s locus classicus on progressive
eradication.One can easily judge
whether Warfield refutes the Higher Life model of mere counteraction for the
purpose of advocating ethical self-sufficiency or if he actually believed in
what he termed a “supernatural sanctification” in which “the Spirit leads us in
all our acts, as well as purifies our hearts . . . [so that] to grace always
belongs the initiative.”One can also
easily discern whether Barabas’s critique of Warfield’s classical orthodox
model of progressive eradication, or Warfield’s critique of the Keswick model
of mere counteraction, is the more accurate representation of the teaching of
Scripture:

It is a fatally inadequate conception of
salvation which so focuses attention on deliverance from the penalty of sin and
from continued acts of sin, as to permit to fall out of sight deliverance from
sin itself—that corruption of heart which makes us sinners. Laying one-sided
stress on deliverance from acts of sin—especially when these acts of sin are
confined by definition to “deliberate transgressions of known law”—is too
poverty-stricken a conception of salvation to satisfy any Christian heart.
Christians know that their Lord has come into the world to save them from sin
in all its aspects, its penalty, its corruption and its power: they trust Him
for this complete salvation: and they know that they receive it from Him in its
fulness. [Victorious Life leader] Mr. Trumbull and his associates have no doubt
been betrayed into neglect or denial of our deliverance from the central
thing—“the corruption of man’s heart”—by a certain prudence. They are set upon
the assertion of the possibility and duty for Christians of a life free from
sinning. Grant them that, and they are willing to allow that their unsinning
Christians remain sinners at heart. They do not appear to see that thus they
yield the whole case. An astonishing misapprehension of the relation of action
to motive underlies their point of view; and a still more astonishing
misapprehension of the method of sanctification which is founded on this
relation. To keep a sinner, remaining a sinner, free from actually sinning,
would be but a poor salvation; and in point of fact that is not the way the
Holy Spirit operates in saving the soul. He does not “take possession of our will
and work it”—thus, despite our sinful hearts, producing a series of good acts
as our life-manifestation and thereby falsifying our real nature in its
manifestation. He cures our sinning precisely by curing our sinful nature; He
makes the tree good that the fruit may be good. It is, in other words,
precisely by eradicating our sinfulness—“the corruption of our hearts”—that He
delivers us from sinning. The very element in salvation which Mr. Trumbull
neglects, is therefore, in point of fact, the radical element of the saving
process, and the indispensable precondition of that element in salvation which
he elects to emphasize to its neglect. We cannot be saved from sinning except
as we are saved from sin; and the degree in which we are saved from sinning is the
index of the degree in which we have been saved from sin. Here too, as in every
other sphere of activity, the operari
follows and must follow the esse: a
thing must be before it can act, and it can act only as it is. To imagine that
we can be saved from the power of sin without the eradication of the corruption
in which the power of sin has its seat, is to imagine that an evil tree can be
compelled to bring forth good fruit—or that it would be worth while to compel
it to do so—which is the precise thing that our Lord denies. What Mr. Trumbull
in point of fact teaches is exactly what Hannah Whitall Smith ridicules in a
vivid figure which she uses in a less felicitous connection: that what Christ
does is just to tie good fruit to the branches of a bad tree and cry, Behold
how great is my salvation!42

It is astonishing
that nevertheless even Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas falls in to some extent with
this representation. Dr. Thomas does not forget, indeed, that we are to be
delivered from the corruption of sin—ultimately. When he wishes to bring into
view the whole deliverance which we have in Christ, he enumerates the elements
of it thus: “Deliverance from the guilt of sin, deliverance from the penalty of
sin, deliverance from the bondage of sin, and deliverance hereafter from the
very presence of sin.”43 The insertion of the word “hereafter”
into the last clause tells the story. We must wait for the “hereafter” to be
delivered from the “presence of sin”—that is to say from the corruption of our
hearts—but meanwhile we may very well live as if sin were not present: its
presence in us need not in any way affect our life-manifestation. Dr. Thomas
enters the formal discussion of the matter,44 apparently, as a
mediator in “the old question, ‘suppression or eradication?’ ”45
on this side or the other of which perfectionists have been accustomed to array
themselves as they faced the problem of the sin that dwells in us. He comes
forward with a new formula, by which, supposedly, he hopes that he may
conciliate the parties to the dispute. “Suppression,” he declares, says too
little, “eradication” says too much; let us say, “counteraction,” he suggests,
and then we shall have the right word. Does “counteraction,” however, come
between “eradication” and “suppression,” saying less than the one and more than
the other? Does it not say less than either? Whether the “sinful principle” in
us be “eradicated” or “suppressed,” it is put out of action: if it be merely
“counteracted,” it not only remains but remains active, and enters as a
co-factor into all effects. The illustration which Dr. Thomas himself uses, to
make his meaning clear, is what he speaks of as the counteraction of
gravitation by volition. In the same way, he says, “the lower law of sin and
death can be counteracted by the presence of the Holy Ghost in our hearts.” Of
course volition does not directly counteract gravitation: we cannot by a mere
volition rise at will upwards from the earth. What volition is able to do is to
set another physical force in operation in the direction opposed to the pull or
push of gravitation: and if this new physical force pulls or pushes more
powerfully in a direction opposite to that in which gravitation pulls or
pushes—why, the effect will be in the direction of the action of the new force,
and will be determined by the amount of its superiority to the force of
gravity. We throw a ball into the air. We have not suppressed gravity. It pulls
the ball all the time. We only counteract its effect in the exact measure in
which the force we apply exceeds the pull of gravity. If Dr. Thomas intends
this illustration to be applied fully, it appears to imply that the “principle
of sin” operates in all our acts with full power, and therefore conditions all
our acts: only, the Holy Spirit dwelling in us is stronger than indwelling sin,
and therefore the effect produced is determined by Him. We do not sin, not
because the principle of sin in us is suppressed or eradicated, but because it
is counteracted. If this be Dr. Thomas’ meaning, one would think that he ought
to declare not, as he does declare, that Christians need not sin, but that they
cannot sin—not even to the least, tiny degree. If the Holy Spirit who is the
infinite God dwells in them for the express purpose of counteracting the
principle of sin in them; and if He operates invariably, in every action of the
Christian; it would seem to be clearly impossible that the principle of sin
should ever be traceable in the effect at all. The ball that we throw into the
air will rise only a certain distance and ever more and more slowly until, its
initial impulse being overcome by the deadly pull of gravity, it turns and
falls back to earth. If, however, it was propelled by an infinite force, the
pull of gravity, though always present, could have no determining effect on its
movement. On this theory of counteraction Dr. Thomas should teach therefore not
that Christians need not sin, but that they cannot sin—as indeed the passages
in I John on which he immediately depends in his exposition of his view would also
compel him, on his system of interpretation, to teach.

From the point of
view of Scripture, however, this theory of counteraction is quite inadequate.
It renders it impossible for the Christian to sin—and the Scriptures do not
teach that: but it leaves the “principle of sin” in him unaltered and in full
activity, and most emphatically the Scriptures do not teach that such is the
condition of the Christian in this world. It surely would be better to be freed
from the “principle of sin” in us than merely from its effects on our actions.
And this is in fact what the Scriptures provide for. What they teach, indeed,
is just “eradication.” They propose to free us from sinning by freeing us from
the “principle of sin.” Of course, they teach that the Spirit dwells within us.
But they teach that the Spirit dwells within us in order to affect us, not
merely our acts; in order to eradicate our sinfulness and not merely to
counteract its effects. The Scriptures’ way of cleansing the stream is to
cleanse the fountain; they are not content to attack the stream of our
activities, they attack directly the heart out of which the issues of life
flow. But they give us no promise that the fountain will be completely cleansed
all at once, and therefore no promise that the stream will flow perfectly
purely from the beginning. We are not denying that the Spirit leads us in all
our acts, as well as purifies our hearts. But we are denying that His whole
work in us, or His whole immediate work in us, or His fundamental work in us, terminates
on our activities and can be summed up in the word “counteraction.”
Counteraction there is; and suppression there is; but most fundamentally of all
there is eradication; and all these work one and the self-same Spirit. We are
not forgetful that Dr. Thomas teaches an ultimate eradication; and we would not
be unwilling to read his recognition of it “with a benevolent eye” and
understand him as teaching, not that the eradication is not going on now, but
only that the eradication which is going on now is not completed until
“hereafter.” That would be Scriptural. But we fear Dr. Thomas will not permit
us so to read him. And, if we mistake not, this difference in point of view
between him and the Scriptures is in part, the source of his misconception and
misprision of the seventh chapter of Romans. That chapter depicts for us the
process of the eradication of the old nature. Dr. Thomas reads it statically
and sees in it merely a “deadly warfare between the two natures”; which, he
affirms,46 “does not represent the normal Christian life of
sanctification.” He even permits himself to say, “There is no Divine grace in
that chapter; only man’s nature struggling to be good and holy by law.” What is
really in the chapter is Divine grace warring against, and not merely
counteracting but eradicating, the natural evil of sin. To Paul the presence of
the conflict there depicted is the guarantee of victory. The three things which
we must insist on if we would share Paul’s view are: first, that to grace
always belongs the initiative—it is grace that works the change: secondly, that
to grace always belongs the victory—grace is infinite power: and thirdly, that
the working of grace is by process, and therefore reveals itself at any given
point of observation as conflict. In so far as Dr. Thomas’s representation
obscures any one of these things it falls away from the teaching of the New
Testament. Grace assuredly “means a new life, a Divine life, which lifts us
above the natural, and is nothing else than the life of Christ Himself in His
people.” It is, in substance, as sanctifying grace, the occupation of our
hearts by the Holy Spirit, and the undertaking by Him, not only of their
renewal, but of their control. It is they alone who are “led” by the Spirit who
are sons of God. But the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts is not confined
to the direction of our activities. Dr. Thomas says truly47
that grace does not merely “educate the natural heart.” But he errs when he
says that “grace does not improve the old nature, it overcomes it.” He errs
when he teaches only that “it promises hereafter to extirpate it,” but
meanwhile, only “counteracts its tendencies.” It is progressively extirpating
it now, and that is the fundamental fact in supernatural sanctification. The
sanctifying action of the Spirit terminates on us, not merely on our
activities; under it not only our actions but we are made holy. Only, this
takes time; and therefore at no point short of its completion are either our
acts or we “perfect.”[9]

A comparison of Barabas’s attempt
to critique Warfield and Warfield’s own words brings to mind Barabas’s
admission that Keswick theology, despite a century of teaching and publishing
book after book, has produced no “carefully prepared, weighty discourses of a
theological nature.”[10]It is consequently not surprising that
Barabas’s own book fits the Keswick pattern, so that rigorous analysis
demonstrates that his presentation of Keswick arguments is neither weighty nor
carefully prepared.In any case,
whatever the reason, Barabas’s critique of Warfield’s classically orthodox progressive
eradicationism is a disasterous failure.

[1]“A
Review of He that is Spiritual,”
Benjamin B. Warfield.Orig. pub. Princeton Theological Review 17 (April
1919) 322-327, reviewing He That is
Spiritual, Lewis Sperry Chafer.(New
York, NY:Our Hope, 1918.Reprinted on pgs. 211-218 of Christ the Lord:The Reformation and Lordship Salvation,
ed. Michael Horton.Note that Barabas
makes the same sort of false dichotomy that Chafer does—perhaps a further line
of evidence that Barabas was ignorant of Warfield’s argument.

[2]Pg.
201, So Great Salvation,
Barabas.Barabas would have done well to
carefully investigate the writings of what is very likely the most prominent
historical Keswick critic before composing a Keswick critique of Warfield’s
theology.Then again, his sloppy study
of Warfield is an accurate reflection of the Higher Life methodology overall,
as “Keswick furnishes us with . . .no
carefully prepared, weighty discourses of a theological nature” (pg. 51, So Great Salvation).

[3]On
pg. 72 of So Great Salvation, Barabas
cites pgs. 579-583 of Warfield’s Perfectionism
vol 2, where Warfield explicitly states that the Holy Spirit counteracts the
sin principle as well as suppressing and progressively eradicating it.Indeed, Warfield’s affirmation “Counteraction
there is; and suppression there is; but most fundamentally of all there is
eradication; and all these work one and the self-same Spirit” (pg. 583, Perfectionism, Vol. 2) is made
in-between two quotations Barabas makes from pgs. 583 and 584 of Warfield’s
work, a mere handful of sentences after the end of Barabas’s quotation.Barabas’s failure to state Warfield’s
position correctly in such a situation is both most regrettable and
inexcusable.

[5]In
the sense that Warfield employs the word control
and counteract, the words can be
legitimately employed to describe one aspect of the Spirit’s work in
sanctification.However, the Keswick
quietistic and perfectionistic penumbras associated with counteract make control a
generally superior designation.

[7]Regretably,
Barabas is not alone in his misrepresentation of Warfield.John Walvoord, reviewing Warfield’s Studies in Perfectionism from a
Chaferian, pro-Higher Life perspective, makes the astonishing affirmation that
“Warfield never seems to have adequately distinguished spirituality from
perfectionism” (pg. 358, Bibliotheca Sacra 116:464 [October 1959]).A more accurate assessment, made by a
comprehensive study of Warfield’s works rather than by the utterly unwarranted
assumption that opposition to Keswick is opposition to deep Christian
spirituality and passionate fellowship with God, was made by Fred G. Zaspel:

Warfield . . . glories in the lavish provisions of salvation
in Christ. The Christian’s privileged standing as a saint; his status as a
child of God in the realization of the Father’s love and fellowship; his rich
enjoyment of the Spirit; his freedom of conscience despite his sin; the
fullness of righteousness imputed to him in justification; the new life,
“repristination,” purity, and inward and outward transformation all inevitably
realized in renewal and in sanctification; the hope and final realization of
glory with Christ—these are all common themes in Warfield. (pg. 508, The Theology of B. B. Warfield:A Systematic Summary, F. G. Zaspel)

[8]Pg.
73, So Great Salvation, Barabas.Ironically, one of Warfield’s critiques of
the Higher Life theology is that it hinders the genuine dependence on God
fostered by the classic evangelical doctrine:

Nevertheless, the open teaching of the whole [Higher
Life] movement is to the effect that God acts—and can act—in the matter of
sanctification, as in the whole matter of salvation, only as man, by his prior
action, releases Him for action. This is not a wholesome attitude to take
towards God. It tends to looking upon Him as the instrument which we use to
secure our ends, and that is a magical rather than a religious attitude. In the
end it inhibits religion which includes in its essence a sense of complete
dependence on God. (pgs. 554-555, Studies
in Perfectionism, Part Two, The Works
of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 8, B. B. Warfield.)

Would Warfield criticize the Higher Life system for
inhibiting that “sense of complete dependence on God” which is the “essence” of
religion if he were truly an advocate of ethical self-sufficiency?Let his own words indicate his attitude
toward being ethically self-sufficient:“Ethicism and solafideanism—these are the eternal contraries, mutually
exclusive. . . . [It must be] Christ Only, Christ All in All, with us; only
then, do we obey fully Paul’s final exhortation: ‘Let your joy be in the Lord’”
(pgs. 324-325, Faith and Life, B. B.
Warfield. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1916).

46pp.
93, 94. On the ill-treatment which the Seventh Chapter of Romans has received
in general from the members of this school see some interesting remarks by H.
A. Boardman as cited, chapter vii. pp. 98 ff. [Footnote in Warfield.]

47P.
93. [Footnote in Warfield.]

[9]Pgs.
579-584, The Works of Benjamin B.
Warfield: Perfectionism, Part Two (Vol. 8 of Works.Bellingham, WA: Logos
Bible Software, 2008.

WORD OF TRUTH CONFERENCE

About Me

I got lots of learnin when I was in cemetery. I also gots books I try to read. I has preecht throo most of the books of the Bible spositorally. I is marreed and has 4 youngins---3 is gurlz. Me am indipendint Babtist. Pleeez reed my blog.